Posted on

A Resident’s Call For Better Planning In Providence

The following from Providence resident Cindy Montoya appeared as a ‘Guest Columnist’ in the Herald Journal in print and online on April 27, 2018.

Soapbox: New Providence zone more like free-for-all than smart planning

Cindy Montoya, Guest columnist
Apr 27, 2018

I read Providence Mayor John Drew’s op-ed in Thursday’s Herald Journal with much interest.

“We want to make sure we control development rather than development control us … We want to have well thought out requirements rather than having developers tell us how they are going to do it,” he said.

Last year Jeff Jackson, who owns Ironwood Development, petitioned River Heights to annex the “Chugg Property,” a piece of agricultural land that he now owns which sits between River Heights and Providence. His original plan was to put a mix of 56 single family homes, 52 active adult homes, and 68 townhouses on this land. The citizens of River Heights mobilized against what they saw as a high-density development and asked their city to zone the land R-1-15, which is 1/3 acre lots.

While Jackson’s petition was pending in River Heights, he was also talking to the Providence city government about what Mayor Drew has been calling Life Cycle Residential zoning, which requires a mix of different types of housing: single family, duplexes, townhouses and apartments.

On December 12, 2017, River Heights City Council voted to accept for “further consideration” the Chugg/Ironwood Annexation Petition. On the same day, Ironwood Development withdrew its annexation petition because River Heights was against townhouses. When the River Heights City Council voted to accept the annexation petition for consideration anyway, Craig Winder, attorney for Ironwood Development, threatened a lawsuit. He said the issue was all about control.

Ironwood then petitioned Providence city to annex the land. Ironwood, now known as Ridgeview Park LLC, presented a plan to Providence city that was much higher density than what was presented to River Heights: On 38 acres, it wanted to develop 47 single family homes, 43 active adult homes and 116 townhouses. Only they don’t call it 116 townhouses. They call it 29 4-plex townhouses. Sounds so much nicer, doesn’t it?

But it’s still an increase from 176 homes on 53 acres to 206 homes on 38 acres. And an addition of 48 more townhouses.

Providence city has had a plan to put a bridge over Spring Creek and extend Spring Creek Parkway for 20 years, but they don’t have the money to do it. Ironwood Development will do it for them if they can put lots of townhouses in a neighborhood of single-family homes. All the traffic will funnel through neighborhoods in River Heights and Providence.

Mayor Drew cites Envision Utah and Envision Cache Valley for the statistic that the population will double in the next 30 years and how we can best plan for this. The suggestion is mixed-use-centers that “combine housing with places of employment, shopping, services, recreation, and other amenities.”

Envision Cache Valley states, “Keep the city, city: invest in our towns — our centers for living, industry and culture. Keep the country, country: protect the agricultural and natural lands that sustain us.”

An op-ed in the Deseret News last October tells what is happening in Cache Valley.

“Farmland is being sold and developed into multiunit housing developments faster than you can say trouble. Conversely, the population of Logan City is shrinking in proportion, especially the student population at Logan’s city schools. Logan is facing a crisis with both its downtown business district and its school district…you can hear a sucking sound created by the vacuum of the businesses and people leaving Logan.”

This is the opposite of Envision Utah’s and Envision Cache Valley’s goals. Yet this is exactly what’s happening with the Chugg property.

There are currently 200 townhouses in Providence. A development of 164 more has been approved behind Macey’s, which makes sense because there is easy access to main roads in this area. This is also an Ironwood project. It comes close to doubling the number of townhouses in Providence. And that’s not mentioning all the homes being built in other areas of Providence.

If the population might double by 2050, why is Providence trying to triple the number of townhouses in 2018? This doesn’t sound like smart planning. It sounds like a development free-for-all.

Last Tuesday evening the Providence City Council unanimously approved Life Cycle Residential Zoning. Before they voted, Skarlet Bankhead, Providence Administrative Services director, told the residents in attendance, many of whom spoke out against townhouses in single family neighborhoods, that our government does listen to us. She also said that although the new zone doesn’t apply to any specific property yet, the city has been in discussions with Jeff Jackson since last year.

Makes one wonder who “us” is.

Cindy Montoya is a mother, writer and artist, who spent many years moving around the country while her husband worked for the federal government. Five years ago, they decided to settle down in Providence.

Posted on

Providence Mayor Drew’s Cheerleading for Developers – Newspaper

The following from Mayor John Drew was published in the city’s newsletter and appeared as a ‘Guest Commentary’ in the Herald Journal in print and online on April 26, 2018.

About Providence’s new Life Cycle zone

By John Drew, Providence mayor
Apr 26, 2018

Over the past year, Providence city staff and Planning Commission have been working on adding a new land-use zone to our ordinances. This effort has resulted in a fair amount of public discussion and controversy. This new zone was unanimously approved at the Tuesday, April 24 council meeting.

Here is some background and information on this project.

Anticipating the city’s needs is our job

It is the job of city government to plan well in advance for anticipated infrastructure needs. City staff must make an effort to stay on top of proposed legislation, anticipated population growth, housing market trends, land uses, and tax sources. It is a never-ending task that requires much study and a broad range of input sources to adequately plan and have ordinances in place.

We want to make sure we control development rather than development control us. We want to be proactive rather than reactive. We want to have well thought out requirements rather than having developers tell us how they are going to do it. This zone does not designate any particular property. We are adding another tool for a developer when requesting a zone change.

Trends in residential real estate

We have watched the supply of available housing shrink over the past 5 years. As of this writing, there were 196 homes available for sale on the board of realtors listing. In a “normal” year, there are 700 to 1,000 homes on the multiple listing. This isn’t just about “affordable” housing, it’s about “available” as well.

The recent selling prices of homes has continued to grow. Over the past five years, the price per square foot has gone up from $72 to $111, a 55 percent increase. What is the impact on housing prices and affordability? Have paychecks kept up with the rising costs of housing? Yours probably has not.

We have seen prices per acre for raw, undeveloped, unimproved land go from $25,000 to 35, 45, 55, and now in some cases $70,000 over the past five years. We have heard some are holding out for $100,000 an acre. Clearly, the era of inexpensive buildable land is gone.

At the same time, Envision Cache Valley and Envision Utah tells us they expect Cache Valley to double by the year 2050 or sooner. Meanwhile, generational preferences of millennials is toward smaller lots, more convenience.

A recent study on housing trends paints a stark picture of how serious the housing situation is in Utah — The Gardner Policy Institute of The University of Utah, March 2018 study, Housing Prices and the Threat to Affordability.

The Life Cycle Zone concept

For the past year, our planning commission and city staff has been working on updating our general plan which is the genesis of our city ordinances. Much of this Life Cycle ordinance has been driven by and closely considers objectives stated in the general plan. Other Utah cities have a similar ordinance under a title such as, “Mixed Use Residential.”

By our definition, a Life Cycle zone is master planned community with a mix of single family and multi-family structures that blend in with surrounding neighborhoods and includes open spaces, park space, walking paths. The maximum of one style of housing would be 50 percent. Purchase a starter home (townhouse); as family grows and more space is needed, purchase a traditional single-family home. It may also include active senior housing segment. You, your kids and grandkids could (in theory) all could live in the same neighborhood.

Minimums and maximums

The Life Cycle zoning ordinance includes minimums and maximums; lot size, number of dwelling units per acre, dwelling sizes, lot widths, setbacks, structure heights, parking, and green space. It also requires the developer submit a phasing plan that will be incorporated in to a Master Development Agreement which is binding on the land regardless of who owns the property.

Why a separate life cycle zone?

  • Control design of the neighborhood
  • Encourage green space
  • Encourage character compatible with surrounding neighborhoods
  • Provide for changes in housing preference by younger demographic
  • Promote affordable housing options
  • Efficient land use

Residents comments on housing trends, Life Cycle concept

“If we had to buy the house we live in today, we could not afford it.”

“We love Providence and we’d love to see our kids live here too. When will we see new development that our kids and grandkids can afford?”

“I’m part of the problem; I have 4 kids and 15 grandkids. They need a place to live. We’d like to see them here in Providence.”

“By only allowing single family traditional homes, we are pricing our children out of the housing market.”

“Higher density housing creates high crime areas.”

“Townhouse developments are run down after five years and property is poorly maintained.”

“We will see broken down cars and trash.”

“Nothing but renters and transients”

“Not in my neighborhood”

Reality

Providence has almost 200 townhomes that by design blend in to traditional residential neighborhoods.

  • Most are occupied by young couples or families and many with a college education and a dual household income.
  • We do not experience more police calls in these areas.
  • Properties are professionally maintained.
  • Housing dollars compete with other rising family costs.

Residents buying these homes are our children, neighbors and friends.

Posted on

Letter to the Editor April 23, 2018

The following Letter to the Editor from Providence residents Bob Bissland and Laura Fisher appeared in the Herald Journal only in the online edition on April 24, 2018.

——————————————————

To the editor:

Tonight at 6:00 p.m. the Providence City Council will vote on a proposal for a new zone in Providence while a revision of the General Plan is in progress. Simultaneously they face a proposal for annexing 41 acres of farmed property between Providence and River Heights near the “bench”. The proposed Development Agreement would apply the new zone to 18 of those acres. This zone would permit town homes, duplexes, twin-homes and apartments in single-family neighborhoods. Citizens are mystified by the rush to judgement. The area is surrounded by single-family zones on three sides with the soon-to-be-developed “bench” area on the fourth side. These 41 acres (plus more acreage) failed annexation in River Heights last year due to citizen opposition to multi-family zoning in single-family neighborhoods.

Opponents predict increases in traffic, parking problems, noise, school crowding (Providence City students are already being taught at River Heights Elementary and the River Heights school is already using “temporary” buildings to house overflow), crime, blight, flooding of houses and decreases in property values. No one knows whether recent flooding in houses near Spring Creek in the proposed area was due to irrigation or to wetlands factors. The property had water shares which were used only rarely and it is unusually wet without irrigation.

Providence and River Heights homeowners have publicly protested the addition of multi-family zoning to single-family neighborhoods. Our Providence mayor used the monthly newsletter/water bill as a bully pulpit to promote this new zone and its application in existing single-family zones, admitting possible lowered property values. The Mayor’s analysis omitted the potential negative results. Some Providence City Council members have supported the new zone in single-family neighborhoods, yet have failed to address citizen concerns. Citizens view some officials as favoring their own personal preferences over homeowners’ concerns. The applicant already has recent approval for a development in the existing multi-family zone designated by the Master Plan in another area of Providence.

There is also voiced concern over conflict of interest for one member of the Providence City Council.

Citizens may contact the Providence City Council and mayor about this before and at tonight’s meeting. The issue is placing multi-family zoning in well-kept, cherished, quiet, friendly, scenic single-family neighborhoods.

Bob Bissland and Laura Fisher
Providence

Posted on

Email Correspondence with Councilman Baldwin

From: Laura and Bob
Subject: Land Annexation
Date: April 10, 2018
To: Councilman Jeff Baldwin

Hello Councilman Baldwin,

Mimi Recker wrote to Mayor Drew about the annexation. He told her the General Plan has already been finalized and adopted.

Even if the Council insists on annexing the land now, the annexation agreement should and could contain some limiting language as to future uses there, rather than a carte blanche for the developer(s). Ideally this would include no multi-family dwellings and no basements in houses where flooding is the norm. It also would include plain language about the developer paying for the bridge and for any transportation upgrades which will be needed to manage the added traffic. (Of course, without the multi-family dwellings, there will not be as much traffic as there will be with them included.)

The “open space” in the plat for Jackson’s subdivision is a joke, and the shortened setbacks are cheap and ridiculous looking. When multi-family zoning is introduced and used, the people tend to be much more transient in comparison to homeowners. They tend toward more litter, more junked tricycles in the yard, more motorcycle noise at very late hours and more yelling and loud music. One thing they do NOT do is take care of “appealing” landscaping. It goes to ruin.

Laura and Bob

————————————————

From: Councilman Jeff Baldwin
Subject: Land Annexation
Date: April 17, 2018
To: Laura and Bob

Hi Laura and Bob,

The general plan is currently in review by city staff, for some reason the mayor wants the city staff to review it. The city council has not adopted it by vote yet. I made the argument several months ago that we should be working on the general plan and transportation plan before spending time on multi-family or other zones. I have opposed multi-family developments, as well as Roy, without design standards in place to protect the community from trash housing as well as other issues. Providence has no need of more multi-family units! I will continue to oppose these types of developments. We have a beautiful city and there is no reason that we should destroy it with poor developments. As far as the Chugg property and the road across spring creek this has been on the master plan for quite a while and I am currently reviewing the engineering to see what is planned. This information was not distributed to the council for review prior to the last council meeting. That is one reason I requested items 3 and 4 be pulled from the agenda.

You can count on me continuing the fight against multi-family in our city.

Councilman Baldwin

————————————————

From: Laura
Subject: Land Annexation
Date: April 18, 2018
To: Councilman Jeff Baldwin

Dear Jeff,

Thank you ever so much for this response.

As of last week, it is widely known the Jeff Jackson has now announced he much. prefers not to pay for the bridge. We had the understanding that his willingness and commitment to build the bridge were central to the appeal his project had to the City Council (and even the Mayor). Our impression is that elimination of the developer’s willingness to pay for the bridge is a deal-killer. If the Council proceeds to approve the Jackson development plan without the bridge, this would either mean total traffic gridlock and havoc or having the City build a bridge to suit the needs of a developer (about $300,000?).

So current issues are at least:

  • wetlands presence and the Army Corp statement
  • possible flooding of houses built on the Chugg property (as houses built on both sides of the Spring Creek in that very area do now flood)
  • bridge financing
  • the other bridge (when wilt it be built)
  • inappropriate inclusion of multi-family zone proposals in established single-family neighborhoods a rush to judgement for the convenience of the applicant
  • a showing of acceptance (by Jackson) of the annexation by owners of property adjacent to the Chugg property

May I forward your statement to my Providence Watchdogs email list?

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Laura

————————————————

From: Councilman Jeff Baldwin
Subject: Land Annexation
Date: April 22, 2018
To: Laura and Bob

Hi,

Sure, you may forward my response to whoever you wish. I stand behind what I say.

Thanks,

Jeff Baldwin

Posted on

A Providence Resident’s History of the Proposed Development

The geotechnical investigation has Christina Eck’s husbands name on it. Christina Eck serves as a member of the city council. Her husband works for Ironwood Development.

When Jeff Jackson approached River Heights he was planning to develop 53 acres with 68 town houses, 52 active adult lots and 56 single family lots.

Now on 40 acres he plans to put 43 active adult homes, 47 single family homes, and 116 town houses.

That’s an addition of 48 more town houses, in spite of residents of Providence and River Heights speaking out against any town houses.

It’s an increase from 176 homes on 53 acres and 206 homes on 40 acres. Much higher density.

The Providence City newsletter cited Envision Utah for the statistic that the population will double in the next 30 years and how we can best plan for this. The suggestion is mixed-use-centers that “combine housing with places of employment, shopping, services, recreation, and other amenities.” Envision Cache Valley states, “Keep the city, city: invest in our towns-our centers for living, industry and culture. Keep the country, country: protect the agricultural and natural lands that sustain us.”

A very interesting Op-ed in the Deseret News last October tells what is happening in Cache Valley.

“Farmland is being sold and developed into multiunit housing developments faster than you can say trouble. Conversely, the population of Logan City is shrinking in proportion, especially the student population at Logan’s city schools. Logan is facing a crisis with both its downtown business district and its school district… you can hear a sucking sound created by the vacuum of the businesses and people leaving Logan.”

This is the opposite of Envision Utah’s and Envision Cache Valley’s goals. Yet this is exactly what’s happening with the Chugg property.

In the Providence City Newsletter it says, “We want to have well thought out requirements rather than having developers tell us how they are going to do it.”

On December 12, 2017, River Heights City Council voted to accept for further consideration the Chugg/Ironwood Annexation Petition. On the same day, Ironwood Development withdrew their petition because River Heights was concerned about townhomes. When the City Council voted to accept the Annexation Petition for consideration anyway, Craig Winder of Ironwood Development threatened a lawsuit. He said although it makes sense for them to be in River Heights, they wanted to explore options with Providence City, because they want to build townhomes on this property. All this is documented in River Heights City Council minutes and can be found online.

At the last City Council Meeting it was said that there are currently 200 townhouses in

Providence. A development of 164 more has been approved behind Macey’s. This comes close to doubling the number of townhouses in Providence. And that’s not mentioning all the homes being built in other areas.

 

Posted on

City Council Tables Annexation

The following from Herald Journal staff writer Kevin Opsahl appeared in the Herald Journal in print and online on April 10, 2018.

Providence tables ‘Chugg Farms’ annexation issue

By Kevin Opsahl, staff writer
Apr 10, 2018

PROVIDENCE ― The City Council on Tuesday night put off voting on a controversial annexation of unincorporated land so issues between the city and the developer can be worked out.

Mayor John Drew told attendees of the City Council meeting that the decision came at the request of city staff and the developer, Jeff Jackson.

“City staff has come up with a question of the developer that needs to be resolved,” he said. “It may result in the annexation agreement being amended. The developer also wants to come to the city and has some questions, wants to have a discussion.”

Drew said those discussions were scheduled to occur April 24, the date of the next council meeting.

Though Tuesday did not see a vote, residents still weighed in at a public hearing.

They sparred over whether the parcel of land, located in the area of 517 N. 300 East and known as the “Chugg Farms,” should be annexed so Jackson, on behalf of Ridgeview Park LLC, could build homes there.

Jackson’s efforts to have Providence approve an annexation agreement are actually the second time his company has come forward with the expressed intention to build. He had gone before the River Heights City Council last year but later withdrew his annexation petition.

The annexation of Chugg Farms revived itself when Jackson filed a land use application in January of this year.

At the Providence City Council meeting Tuesday, Brian Craig was one of several residents who spoke out against the annexation.

“I grew up in Los Angeles County, and it’s just a big urban jungle,” he told the council. “I don’t want that for Providence.”

Jana Hawkes, of Providence, gave the council some advice based on previous rural cities she has lived in that allowed unscrupulous developers to build.

“The City Council, the mayor opened Pandora’s box, and they could never close it,” she said. “Every time the developer came in … they had to allow him because they allowed the last guy to build multiple units. I’m begging you: Do your homework … see what has gone on with the multiple units on pieces of property.”

She continued, “The developer has a right to develop the land, but you as our representatives … you can control what they put on there.”

Kevin Jensen, who has lived in Providence for more than 25 years, expressed similar thoughts. He supports annexation as long as the council develops a list of pros and cons of a development.

“Sometimes, if all of that has been done … it stands in the economic interests of the city to do something that may not be popular with the citizens,” he said. “But I think if you can lay it out and we can put all the rumors to bed that are out there … then I think we can move forward.”

Craig Winder, of Visionary Homes and Ridgeview Park LLC, attended the meeting but did not offer any comment during the public hearing.